Feminism Posts on Fanpop

Alright, listen up, men’s rights people. Du say Du want to improve the lives of all men, to protect their rights. Well, I have a challenge for you: Can Du stand up for the male individuals who act feminine?

It’s no secret that men who Zeigen signs of anything associated with femininity are looked down upon. Effeminate men are made the butt of jokes all the time in the media and in real life. Just tonight I watched Date Night, where the male lead is described as androgynous and hilarity ensues as he is forced to agree with that. Mehr than jokes, such men and boys are frequently the victims of violence because their femininity is seen as such a horrible offense to manhood. This is misogyny manifesting itself in violence against men. Can Du denounce this misogyny as wrong?

There are men who wear makeup and dress in clothing considered to be for women, but they are still men and still consider themselves men. Some would say they are confused, but they know darn well what gender roles are and they don’t care. Men’s rights people tend to say things like ‘feminism has emasculated them and made them not want to be men’ in response, but that ignores the legitimacy of their perspectives. It is entirely possible for a man to legitimately want something Du don’t want. Will Du stick up for these men, not Von asserting your own viewpoint that there’s something terribly wrong with them, but Von letting them define their masculinity in their own way?

Feminists have been associated with butch Lesben oder just women who behave in a stereotypically masculine way. This is accurate to an extent. Feminists often believe that patriarchal culture has forced them into a role that isn’t for them and adopting this masculinity is their attempt to both be themselves and actively rebel, which can cause a somewhat exaggerated effect. Men’s rights folks tend to respond with thoughts of how feminists are disrupting the natural order Von going outside traditional gender roles. On the other hand, what about the men who behave in a stereotypically feminine way to be themselves and rebel against a culture where they are demeaned and attacked for expressing themselves? Can Du look at a man doing something feminine and say that what he is doing is empowerment?

Feminists fought for the right of women to wear pants, and they succeeded. It is now incredibly common for women to wear pants. But because of the limitations of feminism as a movement that serves the welfare of women, it left the scale unbalanced. It used to be that women wore skirts and men wore pant exclusively. Now this sexist way of thinking is only partially undone. Women wear skirts and pants, but men can only wear pants. Well, Men’s Rights Movement? Why don’t Du fight for the right of men to wear skirts? Why don’t Du see that as a legitimate battle?

Men’s rights folks often decry feminism for wanting to force people to not embrace traditional gender roles oder to embrace the opposite of such, but they miss the point. The point is not about force, but rather to remove force and just let people be themselves. Gender roles are not laws of nature, which should be apparent if one bothers to research other cultures across the world and throughout history. This line of thinking about force often is brought to raising children, the idea that feminists want to force people to raise girls like boys and boys like girls. The reality is that most mainstream feminists want to eliminate the oppressive nature of gender roles and treat them the same and praise them for being themselves, whether that be true to their respective gender roles oder against them. Can Du stick up for the boys who want to play with the Puppen not labeled action-figures and who wear pink?

What this comes down to is whether you’re willing to stick up for men and boys against oppression even when that oppression comes from men, specifically men perpetuating misogyny. Du see, women aren’t the ones oppressing men Von keeping them from wearing skirts oder makeup oder the color rosa oder moving in a graceful manner oder wiggling their hips oder whatever through painting it as a weakness and an offense worth violence. The ones perpetuating that system of domination and abuse are other men. Feminists call this system ‘patriarchy’.

The reason you’re finding it hard to respect these abused men is the fact that to respect them Du have to in turn respect their femininity. This is something patriarchy has socialized Du to disrespect, but Du can fight it. Just focus on the fact that Du respect men, all men, and their rights in a sexist world. Embrace their femininity as part of their masculinity, not a weakness oder something keeping them from being truly masculine. Most importantly, respect femininity and challenge patriarchy Von asserting the value of femininity as just as cool as masculinity. Feminism has been working toward this goal for the sake of women, but here is a point where the interests of men’s welfare intersect with them.

Feminism is not inherently bad for men’s wellbeing. Many feminists can actually be men’s allies in the struggle against the system of violence where men dominate other men. Yeah, some feminists are nutty man-haters, but every group’s got its nutters. I don’t respect them either. Don’t judge a group Von its crazies.

So, I’ll reiterate my challenge: Stand up for all men against sexism. Stand up for feminine men. Stand up to other men to fight sexism against men.

Can Du do this without embracing feminism? I don’t believe so. The only way I see this working is if feminism and masculinism Mitmachen together to fight sexism and better humanity.

TBUGoth, xXxDracoxXx and 10 others like this

Paul_Elam I run one of the better known MRM websites on the net. We have 5 regular writers, two of which are openly gay, and we run regular articles denouncing any efforts for masculinity to be defined by anyone other than the individual.
So your challenge is answered.
On the other hand, the idea that feminism is not "inherently bad for men's well being," is unsupportable in light of the facts. Yes, every movement has its nut cases. The MRM is no exception. But with feminism, the lunatics are running the asylum.
If you want to understand the real problems faced by men, one of the first step is to rid yourself of any denial that feminism is toxic to men and boys.
Come visit us a A Voice for Men.

Dragonclaws I took a look around your website. Frankly, I find it as outlandish as some of the feminist philosophies I was thinking of when I made the "nutter" comments. Some feminists believe that men are consciously trying to put women down because they're evil capitalists, and you think feminism is an evil Marxist conspiracy to put down men. Both aren't representative of anything I'd like to endorse.
That said, I found some things there I agreed with. There's some good stuff about needing to teach boys that it's okay to be emotional and some general stuff about the welfare of boys and men. What I don't like is the underlying philosophy about how everything bad for men is the product of evil feminists. There's good discussion of bad gender roles for men, but when 'a feminist did it' is at the heart, there's no way I can respect it. The situation will not improve by attacking feminism. Chances are, feminists noted the issue and have been trying to fix it with extreme male resistance.
The Mission and Values mission statement begins with "we recognize and affirm: 1. The existence of natural differences between the
genders." That strikes me as hazardous. While there are some differences between sexes, these are minor physical differences. They might be relevant for a job requiring a standard of strength and endurance, where most women may not be qualified to be lumberjacks, but they are generalizations and there are always a few anomalies that should be accounted for by not making a 'no female lumberjacks' rule. As far as intelligence is concerned, women tend to score as average in the IQ tests while men are both geniuses and idiots more frequently. Again, the generalizations should not equal rules and people should be admitted to whatever position based on personal capability in the field. But what I suspect will be taken from this statement is the idea that women are naturally submissive and men are naturally dominant and that any attempt to break from traditional gender roles will be considered a violation of nature. In short, I can find nothing worthwhile from this principle. Later principles note the worth of both women and men, but I have to wonder exactly what worth. Equal worth? Women only having worth as homemakers and men only having worth as breadwinners?
Later in the document, there's a section on things feminism is for and that the MRM is against, which includes "The psychological and chemical emasculation of the younger generations". I'm not entirely sure what this means, whether the "emasculation" is literal or symbolic. If it is to be taken literally, it seems like a good policy targeting circumcision. Another interpretation, though, is denying transgender girls (those with male bodies) the right to transform their bodies. If it is to be taken symbolically, it seems a condemnation of giving boys things considered feminine. Both are problematic.
Also in the list are "The domestication and docility of men", which seems pretty ardent in the preservation of gender roles that have men as strong and women as weak; and "State intrusion into adult sexual relations", which is good insofar as allowing consensual gay relations/polyamory/kinky sex play but seems liable to protect abuse as well. And then there's "The principles of political correctness and the imposition of its vocabulary". I'm guessing this pertains to calling people firefighters and not firemen and such, which represents minimal offense, but it seems opportunity for great disrespect to reject it completely. It's stated repeatedly that neither women or men should be bashed, but that leaves a lot of room for disrespect. I mean, technically it's a site about men and women, but it's not like other things aren't discussed.
Basically, I think it's a good idea to look out for the welfare of men and boys (and women and girls) against sexism, but your site seems fundamentally flawed in its assumption that men are suffering from an attack by women and that we need to respond by attacking feminism. Feminism, though fractured (and I disagree with the more radical segments), has a much better grasp on the politics and has a better chance at bringing about gender equality.
What's the MRM response to [url=http://myprincessboy.com/index.asp]My Princess Boy[/url]? The MRAs I've seen call it a sign of feminist corruption, asserting that boys should be encouraged to meet the traditional model of masculinity. This is in line with the mission statement but is misogynistic and hurts boys. I saw a few instances of transphobia on the site. A criticism of a principle Men's Studies advocate was described as a man who cut his balls off rather than a transgender woman getting gender reassignment surgery (though the epithet "tranny" was used), emphasizing the idea of a man emasculating himself as though this were a sign of internalized misandry. While possibly problematic for a woman to be the principle advocate of a Men's Studies class, a transgender woman has potentially greater understanding of harmful gender roles than a cisgender (non-trans) man. In another article, the gay author expresses disdain for the acronym LGBT because he has nothing more in common with lesbians and (using the scare quotes) "transgendered" than Native Americans simply because of similar marginalization. While imperfect, major feminist sites like Feministing make an effort to make a safe space for trans folks, but A Voice for Men seems like an unfriendly place for a trans person to come out. Gender is important to sexism and understanding the value in gender-nonconformity is a big step to gender equality.

Vixie79 Wonderful article.

Paul_Elam Your interpretation of what you are reading on AVfM is really off target. So much so that one has to wonder if it is intentional.
First, where you were somewhat cogent, was your interpretation that we recognize there are natural differences between the sexes. All the science supports that,all the way down to brain chemistry and hormones. The differences are often profound and your statement that they are minor is contradicted by science on every level. So what you are saying is that the truth is hazardous.
But recognizing that there are innate differences between most men and women does not mean we support pigeon-holing anyone into a particular role or set of standards. Human autonomy and dignity still prevail. We recognize and respect that not everyone will fall into the normative pattern. There is no need to deny reality in order to respect all individuals. And in fact denial of reality reflects a basic disrespect of the truth which easily extends to other people. In that light, it is your thinking that is dangerous.
Refusing the state intervention into consensual sexual relations between adults is not an enabler of abuse. You need to support that claim, otherwise it has to be written off as wild conjecture.
Chemical emasculation refers to the drugging of boys with drugs like Ritalin for simply displaying behavior appropriate to their age and sex.
As to this: " a transgender woman has potentially greater understanding of harmful gender roles than a cisgender (non-trans) man."
A sexist generalization.
There is a lot to your post. Very little of it worth dissection, and my schedule is busy. But you are welcome to register with the site and state your case. I am sure you will get a lot of responses that may help straighten you out.
The MRM, as it is active on A Voice for Men, supports and embraces the autonomy and dignity of all men, gay, straight, bisexual, transgender and anything else outside these designations. Your attempt to characterize it as otherwise is weak and unsupported.

Dragonclaws Right in the AVfM mission and values list, there's use of the slur "mangina". This is used to degrade a man for respecting women by implying feminine characteristics through bonding male gender-identifier "man" with female sex organ "vagina". Something obvious to me is immediate hostility toward trans men because men with vaginas must be fundamentally bad if "mangina" functions as an insult. So, the claim that AVfM respects men with feminine characteristics as real men (and supports the dignity of trans men) goes out the window at once.

SelinaKyle Basically what the MRM is saying is that the dignity and autonomy of men is harmed by the dignity and autonomy of women.
I don't see any difference with the MRM and groups like White Aryan Resistance and other white power movements who claim "reverse racism" when it suits them, yet denigrate people of color and fight against their rights.
Dragonclaws, I admire your patience and willingness to attempt to have an open, respectful dialogue. I've tried it with other MRAs and have been disappointed again and again. I'm tired of dealing with people who so openly and obviously believe that women are inferior to them and do not deserve to live their lives the way they choose. I wouldn't expect a person of color to have to treat White Aryan and White Power activists seriously, so why do we women even try?

SelinaKyle This is from Mr. Paul Elam himself. Jesus Christ. Like I said, no different from fucking white supremacist groups or members of the KKK. The secong quote is from a comment he made about his article entitled "The Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever."
Open threats of violence, big fucking surprise:
"I am so fucking tired of this shit, that I really wouldn’t mind shooting a bitch dead in the face." - Paul Elam
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
"The men’s movement is growing, that is for sure. And the voices in it are getting louder and more strident. We ignored that with other oppressed groups to our own peril. Just like with men we were collectively stupid enough to convince ourselves that they didn’t have much to complain about, even though their reasons were quite evident to anyone who had eyes to see.
"I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.
"Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go." - Paul Elam
And this:
"In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
"I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
"And then make them clean up the mess." - Paul Elam

Dragonclaws Hmm, yes. I now suspect Paul Elam of being a sociopath. More than the cruelty and aggressiveness quoted here, he also displays on AVfM a lack of empathy toward male victims of rape, and he treats children as burdens rather than people deserving of respect. I often note sociopaths among edgier forms of activism (i.e. MRM, some radical feminist groups), probably there because they are allowed to be bullies without being challenged by their peers.
The problem is, within that mass of hate, there are a few good points about how men get the short end of the stick. It seems like the MRAs should be natural allies because of it. That's why that hate really is quite a waste.

xXxDracoxXx ^Exactly. The way you act shows a lot about your character. Just by everything I've read on here, you can tell who the more mature and bigger person is. You have such an open mind and are willing to listen to both sides of the story before drawing your own conclusions. It's sad how Paul Elam is completely close minded when it comes to feminism, but you were open minded when it came to the MRM.
Paul Elam,
The only reason it is 'Very little of it worth dissection..' is because you don't have a response to what she wrote and you can't handle it, so you say it's 'little of it worth dissection.' She knows how to back up her reasoning for things, but you can't back up yours. You can't even explain without trashing feminism. If any of us were to go to your site to state our case, none of the people on there would be able to have a civilized discussion because you guys can't handle what we say, you want things your way, and you want us to see how you see things.
'I am sure you will get a lot of responses that may help straighten you out.' No matter how many times you want to fight and argue on how you see things are the 'right' way, you'll never change my mind on how I few feminism, you'll only reinforce it. Just by the way you were acting on here it shows how we have to be even stronger. I bet most of the MRA are just like you, which is sad because you should really try to focus on men's struggle and how to stay positive in life, instead of focusing in on your hate for feminism. So sad, pathetic, and a waste.
Remember this, Hun: You don't have to be anti-women, to be pro-men.

Dragonclaws The thing is, I have a YouTube channel where I post video versions of a lot of the feminist things I post on Fanpop. I recently made a video referencing this thread in which I said that I reviewed AVfM and found it a group of bullies who degraded feminine men. Paul Elam in his YouTube account TheHappyMisogynist (supposedly ironic, but it's really not) right out accused me of lying to discredit his site, asking me to produce links to articles. I sent him a link to this thread, leading to the recent response he made.
Now, what's interesting is that here, he said he was too busy to engage in continued discussion, but he just now posted on my YouTube that "I responded to it a couple of days ago. AVfM has not "improved." We never bashed feminine﻿ men to begin with. NEVER. I asked you for the articles for a reason. i knew you could not produce them." Interesting how my not being inclined to go through the site's archives for some articles posted over a year ago becomes evidence of me lying about it, rather than the misunderstanding he characterized my position as here. Also interesting that he's too busy to post here, on a feminist thread hosted by a site with a strict set of rules about polite discussion, but he's free enough to post angry slander on YouTube where there's going to be a lot of MRA traffic.
Yeah, I've decided not to feed the troll anymore. He's very clearly irrational. I'd say he's the type of sociopath who likes being the center of attention regardless of how stupid it makes him look.

HPCouples Typical MRA, hiding behind other MRA because they can't stand on their own. He needs to women up, stop hating the world, and learn some respect. I feel bad for your mother, wife (if you have one), and your daughter (if you have on too). Basically, what you're saying is that the women in your life are nothing and that you're above them? That's a great way to lower their self-esteem. You are the epitome of the type of 'man' that I can't stand.

ivoryphills @dragonclaws I'd clap for you, but I'm too busy making a trophy epic and noble enough for your strength and empowerment.
@paul_elam "little of it is worth dissecting" LOL, out of your oh-so-logical arguments, eh, boy? Oh, how I love it when MRAs do all but throw open tantrums about how having women get out of the kitchen and make lives better for themselves and for others, but when met with a sane-minded feminist (woman or man) who can lay down the facts of women becoming great leaders just like men and can make great arguments, well, they don't exactly "shut up" (what with their need to be loud and obnoxious in order to "feel manly") but they don't make logical points either.
Kudos to you, dragonclaws!

cruiser50 As an MRA, I feel the need to respond. I support feminine men. I oppose discrimination against feminine men, and gay men, 100 percent. Men should be able to wear a dress. If you find me ANYONE, MRA or feminist who mocks feminine men, I will debate them. To me, the term "mangina" merely refers to a man who always takes the side of a woman over a man, even when she is wrong. For instance a judge who would excuse a woman who kills your kids, while giving a man who kills kids, the death penalty. That is an example of a mangina, NOT all men with feminine characteristics.

cruiser50 Another thing, Lets look at the famous feminists of the past. The founding members! They were racists and warmongers. Margaret Sanger talked about the inferior races. Virginia Woolf "room of her own" fame was a top-notch racist also. Christabel Pankhurst gave white feathers to men to shame them into fighting in a war, by calling them a coward. And let's not forget the Horrendous Andrea Dworkin. And the pro-war Obama and Biden. Do you support them? Not me. There is more where that came from.

Dragonclaws I like the ideas written about government by the Founding Fathers of the U.S., but they were racist, sexist, ageist, classist bigots. It's possible to admire some things about people without considering them gods who can do no wrong.

Dragonclaws The "mangina" thing was part of my conflict with Paul Elam, who insisted that AVfM was always supportive of transgender men and that it was a dirty lie for me to disagree. How can endorsement of a slur that degrades men by associating them with vaginas be supportive of men born with vaginas?

Kitbeast As a guy who is part of neither the mrm or a feminist i really dont get what the problem is. i have read the AVfM website and personally i really dont find anything wrong with the basic message that it is trying to put across. granted the way this message is covayed may have been a little unwise but the message itself is a respectable one. basically its saying that something needs to be done about the men that find themselves being disadvantaged due to no fault of there own. which is something i think we all can respect.
As for the whole mrm vs femisim thing thats currently swamping youtube. i just dont understand so maybe some one would be willing to explain what the huge difference is.
Bothe parties were set up with the goals to right wrongs and make the world a better place. so why all the hostility against each other?
Ps. im very annoyed with you dragonclaws. thats normally my screen name. damm you ;)

Dragonclaws MRAs basically hate women and blame women for everything they dislike about how men are treated, even when men are mostly to blame for it. Their misogyny also leads them to hate on men who exhibit traditionally feminine traits, claiming they have been corrupted by women pushing femininity on everyone in some quest to destroy masculinity, so they have to take away women's rights in order to preserve manliness. They hate on good husbands as men subjected to the rule of women (there was a comment about Freddie Mercury being a good role model because he was a proud gay man, followed up by someone pointing out that he was married to a woman and was loving toward her, so wait, he's a horrible role model!). They bring up some worthy causes for concern like circumcision, but when "we never should have given women the vote, and we need to take it away to restore humanity to its rightful state" is always the solution, there's ultimately nothing of value. It's hateful mumbo-jumbo.
And I've been using Dragonclaws since 2001. :P

Hamamamamama Feminism used to be relatively benign to men (back in like the 50's). Then it got taken over by a bunch of women who want totalitarianism and openly relish abuse, oppression, and brutality to men. I've never seen AVfM be specifically anti-gay or anti-effeminate males. In fact there's a nice article about "the masculinity police" and why MRA's don't support them. There are some macho types in Men's Rights, and that's fine with me. Most, as far as I can tell, aren't interested in forcing you to be anything.
I don't force women to wear skirts or makeup or shave their legs or anything... Stop letting them tell you anyone is forcing them to do those things because it's simply not true. When was the last time you heard of a woman getting beat by police for not shaving her armpits? When was the last time you heard of an innocent man being beat by someone after being falsely charged with rape? Fired from his job because he made a single romantic ovation to a woman?
The fact is, women have always been treated better than men in most civilizations, especially Christianized ones. Being expected to wear makeup isn't oppression in the first place. I was raised to believe makeup was un-Christian so I always disliked it. When I became an atheist, I still hated it, making me assume the woman is a narcissist.

TBUGoth Feminism didn't fight for the rights of African-American women at first either.

gimelzwa The real reason that the feminists and their corporate supporters are so much attacking the MRM is because the MRA debunks the central tenants of feminism such as patriarchy theory, male privilege, oppression of women for the benefit of men and gender being a purely social construct. When Feminist theories are exposed to sound logic and valid research, Feminism no longer has a leg to stand on. So the Feminists are trying really hard to smear the reputation of the MRM, and their corporate supporters are definitely lending them a hand because their whole racketeering scamming of gender relations will come to an end if people really start learning the truth from the MRAs.

Is it just me, oder is this the glorification of sexual harassment and the isolation of those who choose not to objectify themselves? I mean...I might of been a little less angry if the song was actually GOOD...